Point of law : Section 19(3) of the PC Act indicates that it deals with three situations: (i) Sub-Clause (a) deals a situation where a final judgment and sentence has been delivered by the Special Judge. We are not concerned with this situation. (ii) Sub-Clause (b) deals with a stay of proceedings under the PC Act in the event of any error, omission or irregularity in the grant of sanction by the concerned authority to prosecute the accused person. It is made clear that no court shall grant a stay of proceedings on such a ground except if the court is satisfied that the error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice - then and only then can the court grant a stay of proceedings under the PC Act. (iii) Sub-Clause (c) provides for a blanket prohibition against a stay of proceedings under the PC Act even if there is a failure of justice.

JUDGMENT :

RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

1. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Syed Imran Ibrahim, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Nishant Singh as well as Mr. Faraz Kazmi, learned counsels appeared for the State. Perused the record.

2. Since only legal point is involved in this case, as such the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided at the threshold stage itself without inviting any counter affidavit.

3. Raising an interesting law point, learned counsel for the applicant has tried to exploit the plenary powers of this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer “to allow the instant 482 application quashing the summoning order dated 08.4.2021 as well as impugned charge-sheet dated 27.11.2014 and the entire proceeding of Special Case No. 12 of 2014 (State vs. Dr. Abhai Ranjan), arising out of Case Crime No. 455 of 2014, u/s 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad, pending before Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 2, Bareilly and pending final disposal of the instant 482 application stay further proceeding of the above mentioned case.

4. Before critically analyzing the legal controversy involve in the instant case, it is desirable to spell out the brief factual aspects of the matter touching the core issue:

FACTS OF THE CASE

(A) On behalf of complainant, Muddasir Khan a trap was organized against the applicant, posted as Mining Inspector, who allegedly has demanded a bribe of Rs. 25,000/- in order to issue challan to the complainant so as to enable him to complete his work. After the trap was successful, the F.I.R. was lodged by one Ms. Pragya Mishra, Dy. S.P. (Anti-Corruption), Moradabad on 30.9.2014 at 23.45 hours in the night, making a mention that the applicant was caught red handed with 10 x Rs. 1000 notes and 30 x Rs. 500 notes while taking illegal gratification, as such, proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act was initiated against him.

It is relevant to make a mention to the effect that the alleged complaint was made by Mr. Muddasir Khan on 26.9.2014, pursuant to that the aforesaid trap was laid after making a pre-trap enquiry by one Mr. S.N. Tyagi, who has given his report on the same day i.e. 26.9.2014 and the said report was transmitted to D.S.P. on the same date.

(B) After holding an in-depth probe into the matter, recording the statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. of various witnesses and collecting all the relevant material/documents and after thrashing it on the anvil of thorough investigation, the Investigating Officer of the case has submitted charge-sheet No. 5 of 2014 u/s 7/13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the applicant on 27.11.2014.

(C) The applicant was languishing in jail in connection with above case and he was released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court on 31.3.2015 having Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 1572 of 2015.

(D) After the preparation of report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. the same was filed without any requisite sanction and the request for the same was pending before the State Government.

5. On these factual aspects of the issue, it was urged by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the provision of Government Order dated 24.12.1992 the proceedings against the Gazetted Officers under Group-B cannot be initiated by Anti Corruption Department. Since the applicant is a Mining Officer and not Mining Inspector, and as such, entire proceeding initiated against him goes hay-wire. Besides this, many other factual drawbacks were pointed out by the applicant in his petition while assailing the charge-sheet as well as cognizance order.

6. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant being an upright officer has taken number of administrative steps to curb the illegal mining in discharge of official duty, many dumpers and tractors were seized by him, which has caused cramps to various mining mafias including the complainan